TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... self that the Net Profit of the assessee is to be estimated at 9% on main contract works and 6% on sub-contract works. Tribunal specifically observed that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) could not have adopted 9% net profit on this entire amount and he ignored the fact that the appellant was also working both as a main contractor and a sub-contractor. The finding of the Tribunal appears to be in consonance with the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and it did not commit any error in directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the Net Profit at 9% of the turnover on the main contracts and at 6% of the turnover on the sub-contract works. These are finding of facts and no substantial question of law arises f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and salaries of ₹ 60,80,512/-, totaling to ₹ 7,93,03,796/-. The difference is ₹ 5,24,42,789/-. 7. The Assessing Officer treated the same as undisclosed income of the Assessee and added this amount to the disclosed income holding that there was inflation of labour charges and suppression of profits and computed the tax payable. 8. Thereafter, the respondent-Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 9. Initially, by order dt.06.08.2018, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), granted partial relief to assessee by holding that the entire amount cannot be brought to tax, and it is only the income portion of the labour charges which is to be brought to tax. He further observed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals) had not taken into consideration the fact that the Assessee is both the main contractor as well as sub-contractor and so it deemed it fit and proper to modify the directions of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to the Assessing Officer directing him to re-compute the Net Profit at 9% of the turnover on the main contract and 6% of the turnover on account of sub-contracts. 13. Challenging the same, the present Appeals are filed. 14. Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for Revenue, contended that when such huge discrepancy was noticed in the labour charges as recorded in the Profit and Loss Account and the Profit and Loss taken from the Books of Accounts maintained in the Tally Package, and the E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rges booked to the extent of ₹ 7,32,23,284/- and salaries is ₹ 60,80,512/- but in the same FY 2012-13, the salaries and wages are booked to the extent of ₹ 13,17,47,585/- as per copy of P L account filed along with return of income, vide page 83 of the same annexure. Please explain the difference ? Ans : Readily I am not in a position to explain the above discrepancy. I may be allowed time for 2 days to reconcile and furnish my explanation. If I fail to furnish any explanation with satisfactory evidence within two days, the same may be considered as unaccounted income in the hands of the company for the Asst. Year 2013-14. (emphasis supplied) 16. Therefore, when answering to Question No.35, the Executive D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
